Like many others, I have the occasion to peruse social media. I see many posts, including from intelligentsia, on the merits of wonderful trust. Posts about “feel-good” trust are everywhere. Moreover, trust must be good, because these “trust” posts commonly get so many validating Likes! Everyone seems to love trust, or at least says so.
Sure, trust has its good points, but I will suggest to you that the general rule should be to distrust. I will suggest that trust is the fine exception to the rule, not the general rule.
The problem with these plethora of #trust posts is the same essential problem with a lot of social media: the sound bites of selling taste-good sugar without the health warning notices. [1] I will explain.
Now, when I’ve had the occasion to teach graduate school leadership master classes, I’ve introduced this perspective of distrust and there is usually a fair amount of contradiction from the students. Indeed, in many of my master classes, there are seasoned military personnel, seasoned clergy, seasoned athletes, and all sorts of other seasoned adult professionals, and I would be chagrined to trust that they would all simply accept my own classroom professions to them.
The initial response from some students (and particularly those less trained in the art) is something like, “But, no Professor, you are flat-out wrong. Without trust, the system falls apart. I am trained to trust my fellow man and my comrade soldiers, because my survival and prosperity depend upon it! Look, here is a pundit on this YouTube video who has conducted a study with the Navy Seals that proves that people choose trust over performance; that is, the mission-trained Navy Seals surveyed would rather be with a lower performing partner who is trusted than to be with a higher performing partner who is distrusted. Trust is paramount!” Maybe. And, of course, this just makes my day.
The merits of trust, properly assessed, are simply not that simple.
[Note: As a matter of pedagogy, we remember that this is a master class, not grade school. Everything is not all the same. [2] Therefore, before I address the issue, I usually disclaim that higher-level critical thinking is not always appropriate for the task, and we need to be careful in application; I do not want to contradict purposeful needful indoctrination, such as front-line military reflex training where life and limb rely upon “not thinking.” But, that said, the commanding 4-Star General and many others must have evolved into critical thinking, or something else is systemically wrong.]
As a practical matter, let us start by breaking down trust. First, we recognize that trusting might be thought to occur in two forms: trust of intention, and trust in capability. That is, as I have said in other posts, “I might trust that my mother would walk the earth for me, but I doubt that she could.” [3] Therefore, when we talk about complete or absolute trust, we must be talking about absolute trust in both categories; that is, the “mind” being strong in the object, and the “flesh” being strong in the object. [4] Otherwise, we are back to a qualified trust, or qualified distrust. Once trust is deprecated in either category, we are on our way to proving my point, it simply takes some iterative time.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, let us recognize what abstract trust is, in its essence. Trust is a form of hope, and hope is a form of desire, and desire is a form of emotion. Yes, trust is more of an emotion, or more of a luck. [5] And we know that desire does not play well with wisdom. [6]
In any case, for the scientists and mathematicians in the room, Trust = Vulnerability. Hope = Vulnerability. Hope = Trust. Stated another way, the extent of trust (hope) is in direct proportion to the extent of vulnerability. [The concept of faith is a corollary also sharing the formula.]
Think about it. Although subtle, where there is trust, there is also hope. [7, 8]
As a matter of wisdom, let us eliminate trust (and hope) where capability exists; that is, there is no reason or necessity to hope or trust if the condition is completely controlled by act of self.
Trust is not really different from hope in core essence, but only in practical implementation, and perhaps semantics. We tend to hope where the vulnerability relies upon accidents (luck), and we tend to trust where the vulnerability relies upon an actor who has control over the result. [*5, *8]
That is, as a matter of parlance, we might say that we trust our partner to be faithful, but we hope the weather will be good for an outdoor wedding. Semantics may conjoin the terms where there is divine intervention, such as trusting that god (or the gods) will provide the great weather. Or, it might be a blended concept, such as hoping or trusting that the bridge will hold strong, which might imply trusting the causal engineers or god (or the gods).
But, either way, by ruleset, where there is trust (or hope), there is vulnerability. [9, *6]
Now, having critically assessed it a bit more thoroughly, back to class retorts.
Wisdom, being a form of prediction, requires general rules. From the general rules, we find exceptions on cause and for context. [10] If everything is a ruleset of unique ones, we would all be running around like chickens with our heads cut off, having no basis of prediction. (And, for this purpose, we can leave quantum theory out of it).
For this, I will suggest that the Navy Seals survey example is misleading or deceiving as presented, and perhaps worse: naive as professed. There is nothing worse than trusting a naive teacher, multiplying folly.
Now watch for it: A person saying that trust is preferred to performance is not per se complimenting the merits of trust, but simply exposing selfish human self-interest in a state of vulnerability in one particular setting. The trust is a team necessity as an exception to the general rule. Teams are, by nature, trained overrides. Vulnerability is overcome by a matrix of support. Trust is an exception for a context, not the general abstract rule.
Let’s break it down.
Notice the dichotomy of Trust v. Performance. This may or may not be a proper dichotomy for comparison. In other words, there is a “hidden premise” that these two things should be compared in the first place. Perhaps the knowledge derived from the comparison of Trust v. Performance is valid, but beware of statistics that create comparisons to derive knowledge. [11] Without knowing it, the statistic has controlled and limited artificially the assessment by using the specific comparison; not quite, but like a false choice. With that caution, we can continue.
Wisdom is master. Within the framework of the profession of Wisdom as the ultimate master of judgment within our internal persona, the Navy Seal situation is reconciled. Saying to beware of the powerful weapon is not intended to nullify the necessary existence of the powerful weapon. Teams are, by their inherent nature, cohesive. The cohesive adherent is often trust. When Wisdom needs to implement its adjudicated wise strategy for or by teamwork, trust is or may be wise or necessary to achieve the objective. Indeed, Cirque du Soleil artists must trust the hands “are there” when required, a quarterback must trust that the wide receiver will hit the mark, and a Navy Seal must trust the other soldiers. Showing an example of a wise or necessary use of trust for one context does not vitiate the importance of the caution for when trust might not be wise for another context.
We are cautioned regarding “displacement induction.” “All men, classified as such, have the death attribute. Socrates is classified as a man. Therefore Socrates will die.” This is deduction, it will always be correct. “All men, classified as such, have the death attribute. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates is a man.” This is induction, it will get lucky and be correct sometimes. [12] Indeed, if Socrates is a man, induction got lucky; if Socrates is a dead cat, induction got unlucky.
Like a drug, it does not follow that, because “trust” is necessary or appropriate for the specific context of Navy Seals missions, it is therefore horizontally applicable as necessary, appropriate, or suitable for all other or every particular circumstance. Radiation is good in a fine-tuned circumstance only.
Judging the general rule from an exception. Every time we have a particular conclusion or conclusive fact, we must induce it to a general rule or for another context. Water gives life and water gives death: that is context differential. Context assessment is judgment. Judgment comes from: Wisdom. Trusting what is untested is the seed of foolishness.
We can just compare Chamberlain and Molotov, who trusted Hitler, to Churchill, who would not even trust his own allied French, scuttling the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir and thereby killing 1,300 of his French Allies. [13] Action requires presuppositions of the general rule; so says Master Seneca the Younger, to wit: “When friendship is settled, you must trust; before friendship is formed, you must pass judgment. Those persons who put the last first, and the first last, confound their duties.“
Leadership and fools must be soon parted. Trust where we must.
Induction by implication is sometimes necessary, but it can be very dangerous. Ninety-nine percent of people will Like trust, riding the horse. But riding the horse is not to understand the horse. Even if it is a valid conclusion by statistical assessment that people prefer trust over performance, why is that the case? What is it in human nature that is the causation for the effect that one person would prefer that another person be trustworthy rather than a performer?
The Answer: Survival, avoidance of pain and attraction to pleasure. Self-interest, security. [14] A long human lever, by need for trust by existence of vulnerability (lack of validity, lack of safety). [15]
Trust is not a virtue. Hope is not a virtue. Trusting and hoping are not expressions of strength, but admissions of weakness. Trust is not to be Liked, trust is to be earned and tested. Trust is to be feared, and applied only where vulnerability requires it. No more, no less.
In a law school class I taught, the first question I asked—the very first question—was, “Mr. [Jones], should you trust the United States Government?” Squiggling in his seat, he replied, “That’s a trick question!” “No, Mr. [Jones], it is not a trick question. We can just ask James Madison, the Father of the United States Constitution, who had to build the framework of social interaction among diverse people in a new country, implementing his best and wisest understanding that all his education and experience supported; to wit:“
If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.
[Federalist Papers, No. 51] There is a reason for “checks and balances,” and trust (or hope) has got nothing to do with it…sort of.
Wisdom does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be astute.
“Constrained by Amor Patriae [love of country], the true patriot will, as far as he is able, keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances; and not suffer them to be at rest, till the causes of their just complaints are removed.
“The true patriot will constantly be jealous of the men with whom any of the powers of government are entrusted.
“Knowing that power makes men wanton; that it intoxicates the mind; and unless those with whom it is entrusted are carefully watched, such is the weakness or the perverseness of human nature, such men will be apt to domineer over the people, instead of governing them according to the known laws of the state to which the people alone have submitted.
“If the true patriot finds, upon the best enquiry, the want of ability or integrity; that is, an ignorance of, or a disposition to depart from, the constitution, which is the measure and rule of government and submission, the true patriot will point them out, and loudly proclaim them: the true patriot will stir up the people, incessantly to complain of such men, till such men are either reformed or removed from that sacred trust—which it is dangerous for them any longer to hold.” ~ Samuel Adams, Essay in the Boston Gazette. [Abr.] [16]
[4] The Flesh is Weak, Or Why Jesus Got It Wrong [GRZ_69]
[5] On Wisdom and Luck; Or, Getting Lucky Is Not the Same as Being Wise [GRZ_155]
[7] The Duty of Trust – Stand for America® [GRZ_50]
[8] Leadership, and Dealing in Hope; Or, What is Hope? [GRZUID128] [LinkedIn #GRZ_128]
[10] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [GRZ_24]
[11] The Challenge of Vaccines, or Predictive Delusion
[13] TikTok v. QuickBooks? Preparing for Data War. “Good? Bad? I’m the guy with the gun.” [GRZ_133]
[14] The Insecure Human Being – The Business of Aesop™ No. 51 – A Fox Without a Tail [GRZ_36]
[15] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ_106]
[16] The Social Vice Triumvirate™: Jealousy, Envy and Pride [GRZ_58] (“jealous”)
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s “On Leadership and Trust, and Should We Trust the U.S. Government?” is not just an essay on trust—it is a masterclass in critical thinking, particularly about epistemic caution, contextual reasoning, and the fallacies of generalized virtue. The piece embodies his full pedagogical method: challenge conventional sentiment, deconstruct assumptions, redefine concepts rigorously, and reconstruct nuanced conclusions—all in service of wisdom over emotion.
Below is a step-by-step breakdown of what Zegarelli is doing, what he’s teaching, how he’s teaching it, and a final conclusion.
📚 STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS: WHAT IS ZEGARELLI TEACHING?
STEP 1: Challenge Sentimental Dogma
Topic challenged: “Trust is good. Always trust. Trust is a virtue.”
Zegarelli begins by skewering the pop-cultural and social media obsession with “trust” as a universal good. This step is critical because it sets the tone for his recurring rhetorical method:
→ Start where most people are (emotional slogans, moral simplicity),
→ Then pull the intellectual rug out.
He does this by:
- Quoting leadership literature (e.g., Navy SEALs preferring trust over performance).
- Sharing his teaching experience (even seasoned professionals resist this idea).
🧠 Pedagogical move: Disorientation to induce re-evaluation.
STEP 2: Deconstruct the Concept: What Is Trust?
He dissects trust into two fundamental categories:
- Trust in Intention: Will the person try to help you?
- Trust in Capability: Can the person help you?
“I might trust that my mother would walk the earth for me, but I doubt that she could.”
Here, Zegarelli teaches that unqualified trust is a naive concept. The phrase “I trust you” must be broken down into what and why we trust.
🧠 Pedagogical move: Taxonomical precision. Break broad terms into components for clarity.
STEP 3: Reframe Trust as a Function of Vulnerability
Zegarelli moves from semantics to epistemology:
- Trust = Vulnerability
- Hope = Vulnerability
- Trust and hope are species of emotional projection, not virtues.
This leads to one of the core insights of the piece:
“Trust is not strength. Trust is exposure. Trust is a structured form of dependence.”
🧠 Pedagogical move: Reversal through axiomatic clarity. The emotionally “positive” concept is shown to be existentially weak unless justified.
STEP 4: Contextualize Trust as the Exception, Not the Rule
He challenges the generalization fallacy:
- Navy SEALs might need trust because their context is inherently vulnerable.
- But this does not justify trust as a general rule for all relationships or institutions.
“Radiation is good in a fine-tuned circumstance only.”
This is Zegarelli’s use of contextual differentials—a recurring method throughout his works.
🧠 Pedagogical move: Context analysis and false generalization identification.
STEP 5: Identify Hidden Premises and Misleading Comparisons
He critiques popular studies that compare “trust” vs. “performance”:
- Is that even a valid dichotomy?
- What does “trust” measure? What does “performance” mean?
Zegarelli warns against:
- False choices
- Displacement induction (misapplying specific observations to broad conclusions)
🧠 Pedagogical move: Socratic skepticism + logic training. Learn to challenge the framing, not just the content.
STEP 6: Elevate Wisdom as the Master Category
Everything leads to this:
- Wisdom governs when trust is appropriate.
- Trust, like radiation, is a powerful but dangerous tool.
- Judgment is what determines when it should be used—and judgment is the domain of wisdom.
🧠 Pedagogical move: All roads lead to wisdom. This is Zegarelli’s hierarchy of internal governance.
STEP 7: Apply the Framework to Government and Power
Using James Madison and Samuel Adams, Zegarelli shows how:
- The U.S. Constitution is built on distrust.
- Checks and balances are based not on faith in people, but on the predictability of their self-interest.
- Government, like individuals, must earn trust—and even then, be watched.
“Trust is not a virtue. Hope is not a virtue. Trusting and hoping are not expressions of strength, but admissions of weakness.”
🧠 Pedagogical move: Historical anchoring. Philosophical abstraction is grounded in the real-world context of constitutional law and governance.
🧩 CONCLUSION: WHAT IS THE CORE LESSON?
Zegarelli is not anti-trust. Rather, he is anti-unexamined trust.
He teaches that:
🔹 Trust is an exception, not a rule.
🔹 It should be earned, tested, and constrained by context.
🔹 Leaders should use trust strategically—but followers must remain rational, not romantic.
🔹 Wisdom is the adjudicator that decides when trust is appropriate.
🔹 Emotional thinking leads to seduction. Rational thinking leads to judgment.
His pedagogical method combines:
- Socratic interrogation (What are we actually saying?)
- Deconstruction and reclassification (Break down emotional terms into analytic pieces)
- Contextual differentials (This might be true here, but not everywhere)
- Logic training (Beware of false premises and misleading comparisons)
- Integration with history and law (Madison, Adams, Churchill)
🧾 Summary Blurb (Citation-Ready):
In “On Leadership and Trust,” Gregg Zegarelli dismantles the popular notion that trust is inherently virtuous. Through rigorous conceptual analysis, he reframes trust as a function of vulnerability—not a strength—and teaches that trust must be judged, earned, and constrained by context. Using examples from military doctrine, classical reasoning, and U.S. constitutional design, he warns against the seductive oversimplification of emotional virtues. Zegarelli’s pedagogical method relies on Socratic skepticism, contextual precision, and the supremacy of wisdom as the ultimate adjudicator of belief and action.
20250416.4o
© 2023 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-trust-should-we-us-government-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.
GRZ160.20250416 GRZUID160